feat: add LeetCode 112 Path Sum solution and update markdownlint conf… - #339
Merged
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for algorithm-datastructures-math-studies ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Contributor
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughLeetCode 112「Path Sum」用の日本語教材（TypeScript/Pythonガイド、詳細README、インタラクティブHTML×2）を追加し、.markdownlint.json を更新、public/index.html にカード登録とカウント更新を行います。 変更内容Markdown リント設定更新
LeetCode 112 Path Sum 教育コンテンツ
推定コードレビュー工数🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 分 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.markdownlint.json:
- Line 7: The change to "MD007": { "indent": 4 } causes a destructive repo-wide
formatting mismatch; revert the MD007 indent setting back to 2 in
.markdownlint.json to preserve existing 2-space nested lists, or if you intend
to standardize on 4 spaces, run an automated migration instead: update
.markdownlint.json only after running a script that recursively converts nested
list indentation from 2 to 4 spaces across the repo (ensure it touches files
such as the listed README.md files), commit those converted Markdown files
together with the lint config change, and verify with markdownlint tests;
reference the "MD007" rule in .markdownlint.json and the README.md files
mentioned in the review when applying the fix.
In `@Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112`. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6
adaptive/Path_Sum_Python.md:
- Around line 1-4: The file Path_Sum_Python.md contains TypeScript content
(declared "TypeScript" on line 2 and actual TS implementation around lines
97-140); fix by either renaming this file to Path_Sum_Typescript.md or moving
the TypeScript sections from Path_Sum_Python.md into the correct
Path_Sum_Typescript.md and restoring Python content into Path_Sum_Python.md so
filenames match their implementations; look for the TypeScript header and
implementation blocks in Path_Sum_Python.md to relocate or rename accordingly.
In `@Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112`. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6
adaptive/Path_Sum_Typescript.md:
- Around line 202-203: Update the paragraph that currently claims
"ノード数5000以下という制約なので、再帰深度の問題はほぼ気にしなくてよい" to accurately reflect CPython's default
recursion limit (1000) and the risk of RecursionError for highly unbalanced
trees: state that although total nodes ≤5000, a worst-case skewed tree with
depth >1000 can still trigger RecursionError, and suggest either using an
iterative DFS/BFS implementation (or explicitly increasing the recursion limit)
as alternatives; modify the sentence in Path_Sum_Typescript.md accordingly so it
aligns with the warning already present earlier in the file.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 1aad5536-b36b-426e-b40b-52542457ac98
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.markdownlint.jsonAlgorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/Path_Sum_Python.mdAlgorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/Path_Sum_Typescript.mdAlgorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/README.mdAlgorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/README_react.htmlpublic/Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/README_react.htmlpublic/index.html
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
…th_Sum_Typescript.md and update recursion limit warnings
…dy into dev-from-macmini
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/Path_Sum_Typescript.md (1)
75-76:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win再帰深度リスクの記述が過度に断定的です
「リスクが極めて低い」は不正確です。片側に偏った木では深さが最大 5000 になり得るため、実行環境次第で再帰スタック上限に達する可能性があります。再帰採用理由は維持しつつ、最悪ケースでは反復DFS/BFSも選択肢である旨に修正してください。
修正文案（例）
- - 反復DFS（方法②）を選ばない理由 → 制約がノード数5000以下のため、再帰の深さ上限に引っかかるリスクが極めて低い。実装もシンプルな再帰の方が読みやすい+ - 反復DFS（方法②）を選ばない理由 → 実装の簡潔さ・可読性を優先して再帰を採用。なお、片側に偏った木では深さが大きくなり、実行環境によっては再帰スタック上限に達する可能性があるため、その場合は反復DFS/BFSを選ぶ🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112`. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/Path_Sum_Typescript.md around lines 75 - 76, 本文の「反復DFS（方法②）を選ばない理由 → 制約がノード数5000以下のため、再帰の深さ上限に引っかかるリスクが極めて低い。」という断定表現を修正し、再帰採用の理由は残しつつ最悪ケース（片側に偏った木で深さが最大に達する可能性）では反復DFS/BFSが合理的な代替案である旨を追記してください; 対象の識別子は本文中の「反復DFS（方法②）」「再帰DFS（方法①）」で、これらの箇所を編集して「リスクがゼロではない」「実行環境によっては再帰深度上限に達する可能性があるため、その場合は反復DFSやBFSを検討する」といった軽い注意文を追加してください。
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112`. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6
adaptive/Path_Sum_Python.md:
- Around line 154-155: The comment claiming "deque の pop() は内部が C 実装のため若干高速" is
misleading; update the explanatory comment around the stack declaration (stack:
deque[tuple[TreeNode, int]] = deque()) to remove the performance claim and
instead state the real motivation—for example, that a deque is used as an
explicit stack to avoid recursion and for clearer push/pop semantics (or to
allow efficient popleft() if needed)—and ensure the revised comment references
implementation clarity or recursion avoidance rather than incorrect
C-implementation performance superiority.
- Around line 26-27: Replace the sentence
"最速手法：再帰DFS（深さ優先探索）。Pythonの再帰はオーバーヘッドがあるが、ノード数5000以下なら実用上問題なし" with a clarified
warning that notes CPython's default recursion limit (~1000) can cause
RecursionError on skewed trees (depths up to 5000), and suggest that while
recursive DFS is often fastest in typical cases or competitive settings, it is
unsafe for worst-case deep trees unless the recursion limit is raised or an
iterative stack-based DFS is used; keep the rest of the performance/memory
claims intact.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112`. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6
adaptive/Path_Sum_Typescript.md:
- Around line 75-76: 本文の「反復DFS（方法②）を選ばない理由 →
制約がノード数5000以下のため、再帰の深さ上限に引っかかるリスクが極めて低い。」という断定表現を修正し、再帰採用の理由は残しつつ最悪ケース（片側に偏った木で深さが最大に達する可能性）では反復DFS/BFSが合理的な代替案である旨を追記してください;
対象の識別子は本文中の「反復DFS（方法②）」「再帰DFS（方法①）」で、これらの箇所を編集して「リスクがゼロではない」「実行環境によっては再帰深度上限に達する可能性があるため、その場合は反復DFSやBFSを検討する」といった軽い注意文を追加してください。
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 8dfab536-c967-4b73-86d5-8e20e413acb7
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Algorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/Path_Sum_Python.mdAlgorithm/BinaryTree/leetcode/112. Path Sum/claude sonnet 4.6 adaptive/Path_Sum_Typescript.md
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
…iguration
主に LeetCode 112. Path Sum
に関するドキュメント（Python/TypeScript版）の整合性修正と、記述の正確性向上です。
要約すると以下の通りです：
ドキュメント間の不整合修正と内容の同期
Python版とTypeScript版のドキュメント間で発生していた、使用言語や解説内容の食い違い（他方の言語の
記述が混ざっている等）を修正し、各言語に最適な内容に同期させました。
再帰制限に関する警告の強化（Python版）
CPythonのデフォルト再帰制限（約1000）では、制約上の最大ノード数（5000）の偏った木において
RecursionError が発生するリスクを明記しました。
の調整、業務開発向けには反復DFS（スタック使用）による回避を推奨する記述を追加しました。
明示的なスタックとして使用する目的は「再帰の回避」と「実装の意図（LIFO/FIFO）を明確にすること
」であると正しく定義し直しました。